To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.

Spoiler: Its an international problem and national laws will fail. People buy guns because they want them, not because the government allows it. Where you have crime and a society that idolizes murderers, you will have violence and that violence will include firearms or any weapon available.

Putting technology back in Pandora's box isn't a solution.

In the US if you set aside suicides (in countries with strict gun laws people hang themselves or jump off ledges at equally high rates) and drug related crimes (a black market we've made particularly profitable), you end up with a murder rate that's not much different from the rest of the world.

The solution, for us, is dealing with the drug war and wealth inequity.No international arm twisting or magic arms ban needed. We just have to face reality and make an honest attempt to fix our problems.

Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.

Aldon:Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying. And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha! Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.

There are a few simple things we could do in this country today, with very little legislative effort and without infringing on anyone's rights.

1. We could start actually prosecuting prohibited possessors who try to buy guns from licensed dealers and fail their background checks. As it is, they get told "no sale" and 99.9% of them get to just walk away with zero consequences.

2. We could start teaching safety and proper gun handling in public schools. There are people out there who have never been told things as simple as to treat all guns as loaded, to keep their fingers off of triggers until they're ready to shoot, or to never point a gun at anything they don't want to destroy. Covering the basic safety rules and some simple instruction on things like how to safely unload a gun could save plenty of lives, but some people react to this the way fundies do about non-abstinence-only sex-ed.

It's telling that nobody on the anti-gun side of the debate has advocated for anything like these changes.

Zasteva:You understand that the meaning changes when you add words like "solely". I never said solely and I agree that's patently false.

No, you didn't, but the person who started that line of reasoning did: "Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you" ... and now you are carrying the torch for him. Unless you wish to distinguish your argument from his?

Zasteva: CarsGuns are designed and used to kill people. A subset of Carsguns are designed primarily for other purposes (School buses shotguns leap to mind), though that overwhelming majority (perhaps all) that are designed for other purposes will work to kill people too.

Continuing with the absurdity... Sometimes it can be a royal pain to scrape the toddlers off my Chargers push bumper. The back seat is for spectators. Any rumor that my Charger is for designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

Zasteva:Safety glass, bumpers, collapsing unibody frames that absorb the impact of collisions, safety belts, airbags, ABS, dynamic traction and stability control, and, in the near future we can expect to see things like automatic collision avoidance and eventually self-driving cars that take car out of human hands altogether.

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.

Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.

Ideally it would be nice to have a reasonable discussion, yet as long as there is any faction that is determined to "ban", there will be a (somewhat reasonable) fear that any specific regulation is the thin end of the wedge.

The abortion debate illustrates the effect, with some states passing incrementally more restrictive laws year by year with the ultimate goal of making abortion de facto impossible (or at least impractical), though they may be Constitutionally unable to legislate it out of existence entirely.

The fact that many of the pro-gun crowd are probably also among the anti-abortion crowd wouldn't help the situation -- they are all too familiar with the tactic.

To make gun laws work, it has to be done nationally unless you have the power to search everybody and everything coming in and out of your locality. Gun regulation is a national problem - like it is in other countries.

browntimmy:Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."

Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.

AngryJailhouseFistfark:The game of "I'm testing you" is long and tedious, like watching Abe Vigoda seducing Betty White and the two of them enjoined in sexual congress. It holds neither entertainment nor instructional value for any of us.

I would pay real money if they did that on the back of a monster crocodile, wrapped in an American flag with the God Emperor of Mankind looking down sternly on the scene from above.

bigpete53:... and? Are you really arguing that people should not be trained to use firearms safely before being allowed to purchase one? You advocate ignorant gun ownership?

As a firearm instructor, I love (at least in capitalistic principal) the idea of mandatory training before the purchase of any firearm is allowed. Now, who is going to pay me? Are you going to require the individual too. That's unconstitutional. You can't make someone pay to exercise a right. Along that line, you are going to have to pay for them to miss work to take the class, because if you didn't, you would be causing them a financial loss for exercising a right. Again, unconstitutional. How about the state pays for it? Because, you know everyone is just going to love a tax that pays for firearms training. Yeah, we know we could cancel a single F-35 and probably pay for the whole nations training, but it's not going to happen.

Finances aside... how are we structuring this? One big generalized class that teaches overall firearm safety (shotguns, rifles and handguns) in one big lump? Separate classes required for shotgun, rifle or hangun purchases? Separate classes for each specific firearm operation? Because you know, learning how to shoot my Ruger Blackhawk is going to do diddly squat for the FN Five-Seven... Do I have to take three new safety classes when I buy three guns in one day?

So yeah, it would be great if everyone got proper training... but figuring out a way to do it without violating the Constitution? Yeah, good luck with that.

bigpete53:What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

Common misconception. A silencer doesn't conceal anything about using a firearm. In most cases the shot is still around 100db. Silencers, outside the US, are most often considered a courtesy to people around you, not a sinister device. They are thankfully now legal for hunting here, so maybe, just maybe once the ATF processes the flood of tax stamp applications, things in the country won't sound like a world war come deer season.

bigpete53:What is the purpose of a sound suppressor other than to conceal one's actions with a firearm?

To avoid hearing damage, to avoid spooking wildlife, to improve accuracy, to avoid upsetting neighbors, and because they're fun. In most places they're considered a courtesy and they're sold without restrictions.

Thank Hollywood and moral panic for the draconian suppressor restrictions we have in the US.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.

Do you really think that's going to change anything? Do you imagine it's even possible to repeal the second amendment through the legal channels? You'll never get it ratified by three fourths of the states and you'll never see it come up in a constitutional convention.

Most of the people opposed to your viewpoint aren't saying "well sure I agree with you, but the constitution.." and they aren't going to change their minds just because of a constitutional change. Most pro-gun people believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right which is recognized by the second amendment - not granted by it.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

This is why I currently favor repeal of the 2nd amendment. We can't have rational discourse on gun control because of it.

Then you have two traits in common with same-sex marriage opponents: a hatred of civil liberties and a desire to amend the United States Constitution that will never be realised.

Because Constitutional right, that's why. A right is something that doesn't need to be justified or defended. Go ahead and say / publish what you like -- nobody will make you justify why you need freedom of speech. Its a right, which means you can exercise it for any or no reason.

If you need to explain yourself when you exercise your rights, then they aren't really rights.

...so whatever angle you wish to use to attack the 2nd Amendment, as long as the right to keep and bear arms is not repealed from our Constitution, the discussion is moot.

bigpete53:manimal2878: Second, 40mm cannons and Nukes, are destructive devices, not guns. That you would even mention those as if there is a slippery slope that would allow such a thing is only a sign of your ignorance. It takes special training to handle such things safely, the same reason you can't by TNT off the shelf in Walmart. There is a difference between regulation and complete restriction from possession..

The second amendment doesn't say "guns." It says "arms." Pretty sure those are arms. I'm pointing out how absurd it is to say that you cannot restrict rights. As for possessing full auto weapons, it is far more difficult to get one than any other type of firearm, due to pricing and licensing. The point is that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, and most everyone recognizes that they are sensible. Eventually, some of the basic things, like background checks, will become universal and we won't think twice about them. Why? Because they make sense.

Not to get into the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment debate, but almost nobody thinks the 2nd was talking about anything other than small arms.

Of course you can restrict rights, rights come with responsibility. I didn't say there should be no regulation, my argument is there shouldn't be any limiting the type of gun. I think there are enough laws to serve the purpose of promoting responsible gun ownership, the actions of using a gun irresponsibly are already covered criminalized and punishable.

vanbiber874:No, my response was based on a view that I have developed over time and experience I have at schools. Based on your typos and strange phrasing, I think your response was more knee-jerk. itwasapleasurediscussingthiswithyou, bye.

So, what part of your school experience dictates that school shooting teams, in school firearms education and students with firearms in their car leads to school shootings? Oh, and which school shooting(s) can be attributed to those above items?

Since you are claiming your position in based on reason and logic, that should be pretty easy to provide an answer for....

Dimensio:Aldon: Fark It: Aldon: Not even your article says confiscation is being proposed, though it tries to use a lot of weasel words to seem like that is what he is saying. And also no one is even suggesting it is for all firearms.

anyway... states rights

Those goalposts, they heavy?

Haha! Project much?

Where in that article shows someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms?

"Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them," Muhlbauer said.

Doesn't count! An elected official proposing gun confiscation isn't "someone in power proposing confiscation of firearms!"

vanbiber874:Knee jerk irrational fear? How about all of the school shootings? Zero tolerance rules didn't even start after the first school shootings, it wasn't until after Columbine that most schools adopted no-tolerance. And the simple fact that you freaking brag about keeping a .22 in your trunk during school makes that a very rational fear to have. Keeping guns out of schools should really be a no-brainer. No student should ever bring a gun to school, it doesn't matter what their reason is, schools need to be an absolutely safe environment from any gun violence, and any threat to that safety is unacceptable.

Thank you for making my point perfectly for me as to why irrational knee jerk reactions will prevent us implementing effective firearms education at a school level every again. There were thousands of school shooting teams across the nation that all kept firearms and ammunition in some capacity or another. How many of those were involved in school shootings? Zero? Oh... so, your tirade was just an emotional knee jerk response? K'thanks, bye,

Zasteva:Remember that he included target practice as training for killing things, so put that under the umbrella of ultimate purpose.

If the only intent for a firearm design is target practice, then why use a lethal design? Why not less dangerous design -- a pellet gun, or a paintball gun. While those are both able to kill someone under the wrong circumstances, they are clearly not designed to kill.

Guns were initially designed and used for warfare. As they became cheaper and more available they gradually started being used for hunting. I'll pretty much guarantee you that nobody in 1890 would argue that a gun was not intended to kill things.

So, you do agree with him then that "firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things "... So why bother pretending you didn't?

Zasteva:Second rule of Carfirearm safety -- never point it at anyone you don't intend to kill.

To be fair though, sometimes I have to swerve a bit to get the little ones....

Zasteva:Right. That's why they called the first cars "horseless carriages", because the word "carriage" means "highly effective method of killing people"

HISTORY!

Zasteva:My brother's AK-47 and my best friend's .45 are designed to kill people. Any rumor that they are designed for non-lethal intents is simply false.

I seriously doubt your brother has an AK-47. A semi-automatic clone, probably, but a true AK, most unlikely. Savage Model Mark I G, any rumor that they are designed for lethal intents is simply false. Unless you've recently heard of a rampage shooting with a single shot bolt action rifle?

Zasteva:So you are fully in support of laws requiring trigger/hammer locks for stored weapons, or storage in a gun safe when not on your person?

Absolutely not. Any more than you are in support of putting a boot on your car and unplugging the battery every time your car isn't in use.

hailin:Ah I think I just realized why this crap happens. In the article, the kid said he saw his cousins go to prison and when they got out they were surrounded by girls. So we just need to teach women to respect themselves and not date sleezeballs who have been to prison. If they don't get girls then it won't be "cool" to be a criminal.

Not saying it is a realistic solution, but better than restrictive gun laws that protect no one.

Yeah, let's not go the route where we treat half the population like small children, mmmmkay?

That's a common misconception. You are likely to be arrested for and convicted of DUI if the police find you sitting in the driver's seat of your car with the keys in your hand, even if you are in the driveway of your own house (your personal private property).

You can be given a fine for not having insurance on a car that's sitting on blocks in your back yard, completely incapable of being operated, unless you've turned in the tags.

Click Click D'oh:Aldon:We literally do THOUSANDS of things to make Guns cars safer and we continue to do more every year.

People who have no knowledge of firearms laws and safety innovations should not participate in a debate about the same. They can be easily identified, as they are the ones that think there aren't enough laws or gun safety innovations.

Could we not mandate biometric locks be installed on all firearms? Such a requirement would guarantee that a firearm would never be stolen and used against its owner. As such technology is obviously infallible, imposing such a requirement would cause no harm at all.

Police, of course, would be exempt from such a requirement, because police are themselves infallible.

dittybopper:UNC_Samurai: How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?

So she loses her rights through no fault of her own?

I'm not saying she shouldn't have a right to own a gun. But when you have a dependent with a developmental disorder, perhaps it's better to store your firearms somewhere other than the house. Why can't we require people in that situation to store dangerous weapons off-site?

Also, while he may have had mental issues, I have yet to hear that he had violent tendencies from any source. *THAT* might be a problem, but again, she shouldn't have lost any rights because of that.

When you are the caretaker for someone like that, you have to accept certain responsibilities.

Also, the shooter was an adult. He was 19 years old at the time, not a 'kid' in the legal sense of the term.

Semantics. I'll drop "kid" and add "dependent". Either way, he can't function without a caretaker.

In addition, we don't really know if she had the guns locked up and he just managed to steal the key or figure out the combination. She had an actual gun safe, so for all we know at this point they may have been locked up.

And if he still was able to access the firearms, through coercion or subterfuge, then we have a failure in the system.

He *PLANNED* the shootings ahead of time, and if he kept his plans to himself, there is essentially nothing anyone could have done. Connecticut had fairly strict gun laws at the time, and they were followed by his mother. All the guns she had were legally owned, and she had to get background checks on all of them.

This is why I think we need to strengthen both the background checks and the state of mental health diagnosis. Violence isn't exactly a rarity with people with autism; and he had been diagnosed with SID and had some anger issues. Maybe the background check should include "are you caretaking for any dependents with mental disabilities, developmental disabilities, or are prone to violent tendencies?

Of course, no laws will ever close the "steal the guns and shoot the owner in the face with them" loophole.

Laws are never going to be perfect, but what people are asking for is a better refinement and improvements to those laws. Firearms ownership is an incredible responsibility, and the consequences of negligence can obviously be widespread. Dismissing it as a freak incident we can do nothing about - as well as an argument about rights as a blanket defense - is disingenuous. In this case, there was a form of negligence, and a lot of innocent people were killed as a consequence. And there are steps we can take to minimize future incidents, but too often we can't discuss those because somehow any attempt to use public policy to ensure people are responsible with dangerous tools is seen as an infringement on their rights.

It's almost as if crime, gun or otherwise, is a social, economic, and cultural issue, not a gun issue. But nah, that can't be true. We all know it is the guns fault that people commit violent acts, not the people being brought up in a culture that promotes violent crime as the only way to get ahead.

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.

Englebert Slaptyback: That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

neomonk: This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

This is what I keep saying. I'm really sick of gun enthusiasts who can't have a reasonable discussion about what the limits should be. Because there are definitely examples of places where the existing limits are unreasonably harsh, and others where the existing limits are unreasonably generous.

Ideally we'd find a middle ground where criminals and mentally ill people have a really hard time getting ahold of firearms, but responsible gun owners are inconvenienced as little as possible.

To act like that people that want to ban all guns outright have more than ZERO influence on any policy decision or debate on gun control is disingenuous. The debate has been for the last at least 30 years:

1) Looking at reasonable policies to reduce gun deaths. That involve things like researching different options, looking at what places like Canada do, and universal background checks etc...vs.2) No restrictions or tracking of any kind (and therefore no research on options) on firearm purchases, carrying laws and weapon types.

What happens is that gun nuts act like a reasonable discussion on universal background checks (or the like) is equivalent to confiscating all firearms.

Plus, every discussion with gun nuts degenerates to them obsessing over the definition of every type or words to describe firearms.

Isn't an enumerated right something worth obsessing over? I don't see a lot of people trying to get rid of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...

Has anything changed in the past 4 weeks re gun laws or American culture as it relates to violence?

Illinois governor and shameless liar Pat Quinn used an amendatory veto to alter the recently passed concealed weapons permit law into uselessness while citing the crime rates of Chicago, which imposes very strict restrictions upon civilian firearm possession, as justification.

Tomorrow's thread on the override vote is gonna be EPIC!

I have not been anticipating any discussion of the vote; previous news regarding the matter (the governor's delay in addressing the bill and his eventual amendatory veto) did not, to my knowledge, reach Fark's Main or Politics pages.

Nope, it didn't make Fark before, but it might tomorrow. Tuesday both chambers of the Illinois General assembly will hold a vote to override Quinn's amendatory veto. Illinois is the last state prohibiting the carrying of firearms for self defense, a prohibition that was struck down by the 7th Circuit Court. July 9 is the deadline to have a law in place allowing concealed carry. If no law is in place and barring an appeal by Lisa Madigan to the SC, one of two things will happen, either "constitutional carry" or in Illinois' case FOID carry will be the rule or each county and home rule community will set their own laws. IMHO, the veto will be overridden and H183 will become law.

Truly, violent times are ahead for the state of Illinois. Less than six months after "shall-issue" concealed weapons permits were first issued in Wisconsin, a concealed weapons permit holder in the state shot another individual at an Aldi's grocery store over a simple disagreement*.

MFAWG:Pointing out thate firearms serve no purpose other than to kill things is absurd to you?

Really?

The NRA trains tens of thousands of Boy Scouts every year in basic rifle marksmanship. Do you now live in fear of the NRAs private army of Boy Scout assassins, or do you admit the absurdity of your statement?

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.

That would be nice, but these discussions seem to devolve into two polar opposite positions:

1) All guns for everyone all the time, with no regulation or administrative control like background checks.

2) No guns for anyone ever.

There is middle ground but hardly anyone wants to look at it.

This just isn't true, it's the false dichotomy presented by those who think that even a conversation about what COULD be done is tyranny being persecuted against them by Commies who want to destroy America.

It either needs a bailout from New Jersey or for someone to bulldoze the whole place (or for Philadelphia to turn into New York II and for people to try to gentrify it, but good luck with that in the next 30 years).

The important point in this article is the call for a more holistic approach to crime in areas with high levels of violent crimes. Kids who live in the worst areas of the country do not have people that they look up to who haven't been in jail, or who aren't criminals. A great step to take in working toward a solution would be to invest in education, and recruit great teachers for areas like Camden. Then, instead of having primarily drug dealers and violent criminals as role models, kids might start looking up to their teachers as a mentor, and see a way out of the cycle of crime and failure. I support tougher gun laws, but that cannot be the only thing that happens if we truly do wan to find a solution that works. We really need to get to the core of the problem.

Laws against committing a violent act are fine. That's not what you want, though: You want laws against the possession of inanimate objects, which is something completely different.

Nice job trying to conflate the two, though. I'm sure you'll get the usual group of useful idiots to agree with you.

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control." - George L. Roman

It's basic economics, if there is a demand they will be suppliers. Gun control rests on the idea that government can actually CONTROL guns. It can't, it can only make an example here and there while making really bad people rich because they were the only ones who were brave enough to disobey the law and sell the things. Oh, and then the bad people are going to kill good people by accident during disputes over distribution rights.

Just like alcohol, just like pot, or coke or crack or heroin or five gallon tolliet tanks or fark all else.

thecpt:Bit'O'Gristle: It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.

Funny thing is the gun shop the Lanza guns were purchased from was just busted for selling guns illegally. The fine is amazingly hefty too.

How responsible of a gun owner was she if she kept firearms in the house with a kid with obvious mental health issues?

Great Janitor: Gun laws don't make me any safer. They just make it harder for me to defend myself.

Because that's what you do, walk around terrified of everything. That must suck.Straw manYou only wear a seat belt because you plan on running down preschoolers and are terrified you'll get hurt when doing so, right?

The difference is unless you live in a dangerous area the chances of you needing a gun are less than needing a helmet in case you trip and hit your head. I propose anyone who thinks they need to be carrying at all times should also be wearing a helmet and some kind of utility built equipped with first aid and a fire extinguisher.

Or we need to find some way to counteract the current culture of "violence is the solution to all problems." Kids in your yard? Shoot them. Guy cut you off in traffic? Shoot him. Caught your girlfriend cheating? Shoot them. Feeling depressed? Shoot a bunch of people, then yourself.

I don't advocate gun control because it's trying to fix a symptom rather than the problem, but the number of people who shout "You can't take my guns otherwise I won't be able to _____" is indicative of the bigger cultural problem of dependency on violent solutions.

Dimensio:StaleCoffee: Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.

Your criticism is appropriate. Gun ban advocacy groups recognize the difference, which is why they differentiate between such incidents rather than grouping all deaths resulting from firearm use, regardless of context and including all suicides, as "gun deaths" and advocating unreasonable restrictions based upon that single figure.

It would be nice if people differentiated gun control and regulation from gun bans, too.

StaleCoffee:Yeah great, compare a wealthy suburban school massacre perpetrated by a lunatic who stole his weapons from a "responsible" gun owner with a long term crime riddled ghetto steeped in poverty and a lack of education, because they share the same problems and should look at similar solutions.

Your criticism is appropriate. Gun ban advocacy groups recognize the difference, which is why they differentiate between such incidents rather than grouping all deaths resulting from firearm use, regardless of context and including all suicides, as "gun deaths" and advocating unreasonable restrictions based upon that single figure.

It always makes me laugh that they ban this gun or that gun, or make it 20 times harder for a law abiding person who has common sense to get a good weapon for either self defense, hunting, or target shooting. After all those poor kids were killed by that asshole with the AR-15, all the gun hating libtards said "WE must do something to ban these guns, or make it much harder for people to get them. We must keep guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people."

Durrrrrrrrr

/The guy who killed all those kids? The guns weren't his. They belonged to his mother, who was a valid non crazy weapon owner. He killed her and stole her guns. Banning guns, or making it hard for honest law abiding people to get them does nothing, beyond your knee jerk reaction. He STOLE THEM. Make all the stupid moranic laws you want, criminals and crazy people don't give a fark. Jesus, get a farking brain and stop making new laws that the criminals ignore, or make it harder for honest people to defend themselves. Get a brain morans.

browntimmy:Those girls find dudes who've been to prison hot? What the fark is that all about? I get the bad boy concept but not the "I want a man who will never go anywhere in life and is prone to violence."